[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 3671-3682]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR 
                ON TERROR, AND HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 725 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4939.

                              {time}  1646


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Boozman (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, 28\1/2\ minutes remained in general debate. The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) has 19 minutes remaining and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), the Chairman of the committee, for his work in 
bringing this supplemental appropriations bill to the floor. He has 
really done an outstanding job of, I think, balancing the different 
interests that are involved here.
  I want to take my time, Mr. Chairman, Members, to speak a bit about 
that part of the bill that deals with the foreign assistance funds. 
That is Chapter 3 of H.R. 4939.
  The Foreign Operations portion of the fiscal year 2006 supplemental 
is $2.08 billion. That amount is $140 million, or 6.7 percent less than 
the request of the administration of $2.2 billion.

[[Page 3672]]

  Now, here is how we arrived at this lesser figure.
  First, we eliminated funding requested by the President that is not 
for the current fiscal year. That is $74 million. We eliminated funding 
that was requested for non-emergency costs. That is $99 million. And we 
reduced costs by rescinding previously appropriated funds of $17 
million that are not needed because of changed circumstances.
  Let me talk for a minute about specific regions and countries. First, 
Iraq. The bill provides new budget authority of $1.67 billion for Iraq, 
or two-thirds of the amount in foreign assistance is going to Iraq. But 
that is a reduction of $58 million from what the President requested. 
This reduction represents the amount requested for fiscal year 2007 
costs for the U.S. Agency for International Development. As I said a 
moment ago, we concluded that this 2006 supplemental bill should not be 
used to pre-fund expenses of the next fiscal year.
  In addition, the supplemental transfers $185 million from the Iraq 
Relief and Reconstruction Fund appropriation to augment the new funds 
provided in this supplemental. These are still unobligated funds that 
are appropriately applied to the purposes of this legislation. And that 
brings the total available to Iraq of $1.85 billion.
  Many Members are greatly concerned about Darfur and our efforts to 
stave off genocidal warfare in that region of Africa. Though a fraction 
of the amount requested for Iraq, our bill attempts to accomplish this. 
It contains $201 million, fully funding the President's request for 
Darfur programs. This includes $123 million for the African Union 
Mission in Sudan, or called AMIS, for peacekeeping activities. The 
administration has assured us that this $123 million will finance the 
entire U.S. fiscal year 2006 contribution.
  Also included in this amount is $11.7 million for refugee assistance 
and $66.3 million in nonfood assistance in the International Disaster 
and Famine Assistance Account. The plight of displaced persons in 
Darfur remains critical and is pathetic.
  The supplemental bill provides new budget authority of only $8.4 
million for Afghanistan. This is a reduction of $54 million from the 
request but does not constitute a lessening of our commitment to this 
emerging democracy. Rather, it represents, first, the amount requested, 
$16 million, for fiscal year 2007 funds for USAID. It reduces that 
amount. Second, it eliminates the amount requested for non-emergency 
requirements of $38 million. The $8.4 million fully funds the request 
for emergency replacement of an electric turbine generator and 
assistance for migration and refugee requirements.
  My colleagues should know that the Secretary of State has not yet met 
the requirements of the fiscal year 2006 Appropriations Act which 
requires a certification that the Government of Afghanistan is fully 
cooperating with U.S.-financed efforts to eradicate poppy cultivation. 
It did not seem prudent at this juncture to appropriate any non-
emergency funds for Afghanistan until that certification can be made.
  The legislation includes $10 million in the Democracy Fund 
appropriation for the promotion of democracy, governance, human rights, 
independent media and the rule of law programs in Iran. This is a 
reduction of $55 million from the requested amount. However, $50 
million of that is for broadcasting efforts and is addressed in Chapter 
6 of this bill, the jurisdiction of Mr. Wolf's subcommittee.
  For Liberia, the bill includes a total of $63.8 million. $13.8 
million of that amount would be used to cover the extraordinary costs 
of refugees returning to Liberia, and $50 million will provide 
assistance for economic and project support.
  Now let me turn to the issues that are not specific dollar amounts. 
One of these is a general provision, Section 3012, not in Chapter 3 of 
the bill. It deals with assistance to the Palestinian Authority.
  I want to be clear. This bill includes no new, no additional funding 
for the Palestinian territories, and the President's supplemental 
request included no such funding. However, the fiscal year 2006 Foreign 
Operations Appropriations Bill did include $150 million to support the 
Palestinian people and build the capacity of the Abbas-led government. 
Since the fiscal year 2006 bill was passed, as my colleagues know, 
Hamas won a majority of the Palestinian legislature in the recent 
elections.
  The provision included in this bill before us today reconfirms and 
reemphasizes congressional oversight of our foreign assistance programs 
to this troubled region. It directs that no fiscal year 2006 or prior 
year funding can be used to support the Palestinian Authority or a 
successor entity until the government fulfills the requirements of the 
so-called Quartet Statement. It also suspends U.S. assistance to the 
Palestinian Authority until the administration completes its review of 
the entire assistance program.
  To be clear, this provision will not halt, nor should it halt, 
humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. We can and we must 
hold the elected leadership in the Palestinian territories to account 
for their messages of violence. But we should not punish the people of 
the territories for asserting themselves peacefully and democratically 
against corruption in their quest for a better life.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this supplemental. The 
foreign operations funding contained in Chapter 3 has been scrubbed so 
that only emergency requirements remain, and that is $140 million 
reduction from the President's request.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for the purpose of a 
colloquy.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, last year Hurricanes Katrina, Rita 
and Wilma dealt a triple blow to the residents of my district. 
Florida's commercial fishermen were among the hardest hit, yet these 
small business owners did not receive any special disaster assistance 
from last year's Hurricane Supplemental Appropriations Bill and minimal 
aid from other Federal agencies. Both their livelihoods and the future 
of this important industry are threatened. That is why I am requesting 
the gentleman's help in securing the necessary resources to assist 
these hard-working men and women.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am certainly aware of the devastating 
impact of last year's hurricane season, and you have my assurances that 
I will work with you and do everything I can to address this issue when 
we go to conference with the Senate on this bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your bringing this important 
legislation to the floor. I will include for the Record a letter I 
recently received from several elected officials from my district which 
explains in great detail the devastation Hurricane Rita inflicted on 
Southwest Louisiana and the need for Federal support in its aftermath.
  The Nation suffers from Rita amnesia, because the residents of 
Southwest Louisiana did everything right. We heeded the Federal 
warnings, evacuated before the storm, saving thousand of lives in the 
process. In fact, there were no deaths after Rita.
  We returned after the storm and immediately got to work to begin the 
long process of rebuilding our communities and restoring our way of 
life. The FEMA Long Term Community Recovery Team has said that 
Southwest Louisiana is leading the State in the recovery effort.
  Southwest Louisiana is not looking for a Federal handout, but we need 
the Nation's help to recover from this unprecedented storm. Debris 
removal has been slow. 5.73 million cubic yards so far has been 
collected, enough to cover a football field with a pile of debris 1 
mile high. Homes are now destroyed or uninhabitable. And, in fact, in 
Cameron Parish, 90 percent of the homes

[[Page 3673]]

were reduced to slabs of concrete. Industries are hurting. The Lake 
Area Industry Alliance, home to a vast petrochemical complex which 
serves the entire U.S., reports damages to its facilities of nearly $50 
million; and that is just one example.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot ignore the plight of Southwest Louisiana, and 
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Remember 
Rita. I yield back.


                                         City of Lake Charles,

                                 Lake Charles, LA, March 11, 2006.
     Re Hurricane Rita recovery in southwest Louisiana.

     Hon. Charles Boustany,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Boustany: First and foremost, we from 
     Southwest Louisiana want to thank you for your support in our 
     efforts to recover from Hurricane Rita. You have been very 
     vocal in your effort to help us and we sincerely appreciate 
     it. This letter is intended to give you information to 
     support your efforts and to remind you that we stand ready to 
     work with you in this effort. However, it has become very 
     evident that others in our nation's capitol have forgotten 
     about the destruction that occurred as a result of that 
     storm.
       We are not asking them to take our word for it. Just this 
     week Governor Rick Perry testified in Washington D.C. and 
     according to AP wire reports he requested that Texas be given 
     $2 billion dollars, because ``states slammed by Katrina are 
     getting more generous help than his state, which bore the 
     brunt of Hurricane Rita.'' Governor Perry's significant 
     funding request indicates his belief that Hurricane Rita was 
     a destructive storm.
       We do not intend to compete with our Texas neighbors for 
     recovery money. We acknowledge that Hurricane Rita inflicted 
     serious damage on Southeast Texas. But Southwest Louisiana 
     also suffered significant devastation from this storm as 
     well. The eye of the storm made landfall in Cameron Parish on 
     September 24. The highly destructive northeast quadrant of 
     the storm (with its winds and storm surge) was most 
     destructive in Cameron Parish and in Calcasieu Parish in 
     Louisiana. Cameron Parish as we knew it no longer exists. We, 
     as Governor Perry, are concerned that we run the risk of 
     being overshadowed by Hurricane Katrina when it comes time to 
     allocate limited resources to the recovery effort.
       Southwest Louisiana's elected officials, emergency 
     responders and citizens worked hard to take the initiative to 
     comply with evacuation orders, maintain discipline after the 
     storm and truly prioritize our needs in a professional 
     manner. Included below for your review is an overview of what 
     happened in Calcasieu and Cameron Parishes during the Katrina 
     and Rita storms. Hopefully this information will help you and 
     your staff in your efforts to prevent Congress and the 
     federal agencies responsible for hurricane relief from 
     forgetting the devastation that occurred across the coastal 
     parishes of Louisiana and in Southwest Louisiana in 
     particular.
       Hurricane Katrina also impacted Southwest Louisiana. 
     Calcasieu Parish alone welcomed approximately 20,000 evacuees 
     from Hurricane Katrina by opening shelters at a cost of 
     nearly $1 million. The support of our community for the 
     evacuees was overwhelming. Food, clothing, money and time 
     were donated. Businesses and residents offered shelter, 
     entertainment and support. The Lake Charles American Press 
     described the effort as our community's finest hour. When 
     Hurricane Rita approached our area, the first concern was to 
     evacuate these people to safety.
       When Hurricane Rita passed through Southwest Louisiana, our 
     citizens listened to officials and heeded warnings to 
     evacuate. Residents of Cameron and Calcasieu Parishes left 
     the area on heavily congested roadways to the north along 
     with residents of Texas who had already been given an order 
     to evacuate. Gas supplies were limited and hotels to the 
     north were full with evacuees from Hurricane Katrina, many 
     who had evacuated a second time to escape Hurricane Rita.
       Residents of Calcasieu Parish began returning to the area 
     after the storm starting September 30, to ``look and leave''. 
     They returned to find over 19,000 homes or approximately 25 
     percent of the housing stock was destroyed. Another 35 
     percent of the housing was damaged. Power was out throughout 
     most of the area for one to three weeks causing widespread 
     loss of water and sewer systems and shuttering industry and 
     retail businesses. Gasoline was a rare commodity. 
     Approximately half of the trees in Ca1casieu Parish were 
     destroyed or damaged.
       Industries and public facilities were also heavily damaged. 
     Lake Charles Regional Airport suffered over $20 million in 
     damage including the passenger terminal, which was damaged 
     beyond repair. The facility was closed approximately fifteen 
     days after the storm. Chennault International Airport, home 
     to Northrop Grumman, suffered approximately $40 million in 
     damages and was closed for four weeks after the storm. 
     Damages to other aviation industry businesses brought the 
     estimated damage to our aviation industry to approximately 
     $90 million.
       The Lake Area Industry Alliance, home of a vast 
     petrochemical complex important to the entire United States, 
     reported damages of approximately $50 million to their 
     members' facilities. Damage to off-shore rigs and the closure 
     of the Port of Lake Charles (the nation's 12th largest port) 
     caused supply disruptions to production facilities. Supply 
     disruptions and power outages resulted in loss of production, 
     worker layoffs and additional startup costs. Lyondell 
     Chemical Company closed its facility, costing the community 
     295 well paying jobs with benefits; it will be impossible to 
     replace this facility.
       The six casinos of our gaming industry were shut down 
     during the power outage. Harrah's two riverboat casinos and 
     hotel were damaged beyond repair. Harrah's facility is 
     currently closed; our community has lost 2,000 jobs as a 
     result.
       McNeese State University and Sowela Technical College 
     sustained extensive damage. The Calcasieu Parish School 
     System experienced heavy damage to school facilities and 
     closure of all public schools for approximately four weeks. 
     Damage to education facilities is estimated at $57 million.
       The Calcasieu Parish Police Jury and area municipalities 
     suffered damages to facilities of approximately $30 million. 
     The parish wide highway system, including three movable 
     bridges in Calcasieu Parish, required extensive debris 
     removal and repairs to make them safe for traffic. The I-10 
     bridge over Lake Charles, the main east-west traffic artery 
     through southwest Louisiana and across the southern U.S. was 
     closed following the storm for structural inspection after a 
     barge ran into a supporting structure. An early estimate of 
     parish-wide highway damage is $20 million.
       Cameron Parish, our sister parish to the south was totally 
     devastated. Although there was no loss of life, Cameron 
     suffered the loss of a way of life. Approximately 90 percent 
     of the homes in Cameron, the Parish seat were destroyed. 
     Other communities suffered similar or worse fates. The major 
     industries--oil, agriculture, seafood and tourism--were 
     destroyed. It will take years for the residents to recover. 
     And Southwest Louisiana will never be fully recovered until 
     Cameron is rebuilt and back ``in business'' again.
       Cameron Parish contains four wildlife refuges, all of which 
     sustained significant damage. The Sabine National Wildlife 
     Refuge of 125,000 acres was officially closed after Hurricane 
     Rita. Facilities were destroyed and the landscape was 
     littered with debris from damaged structures, vehicles, dead 
     animals and hazardous chemical containers. The refuge cannot 
     reopen until the hazardous debris is removed and there is no 
     safety risk to the public. In 2004 the economic effect of the 
     refuge and its visitation was $9 million, supporting 108 jobs 
     and $1 million in tax revenue. This is an average return of 
     $10.18 for every federal dollar spent operating the refuge. 
     Annually 300,000 people tour the Creole Nature Trail, which 
     is designated an All-American Road. Nature trail brochures 
     are being pulled out of circulation by bureau officials.
       The Southwest Louisiana community immediately began 
     cleaning up and repairing damages in order to begin recovery 
     from this storm. Temporary ``blue'' roofs were installed on 
     17,104 houses and apartments. An estimated 5.73 million cubic 
     yards of storm debris was collected, enough to cover a 
     football field with a pile more than one half-mile high.
       In addition to residents who were displaced from their 
     homes due to damage, approximately 10,000 evacuees from other 
     places are now residing in Calcasieu Parish. Hotel vacancy is 
     essentially zero and there is a shortage of affordable 
     housing for residents. Because of this housing shortage, many 
     residents have not been able to return to the Parish. Many 
     businesses are still unable to operate for normal business 
     hours because of a shortage of workers. Although many minimum 
     wage jobs are advertised and unfilled for long periods of 
     time, unemployment in the Parish has more than tripled from 
     5.3 percent in 2004 to 16.2 percent in November 2005, an 
     increase of 10.9 percent due to a number of complex reasons.
       We understand the scale of the storm in Hurricane Katrina. 
     And we understand that Southeast Texas was affected by the 
     Hurricane Rita, but please do not penalize us for being 
     aggressive in our efforts to help ourselves recover. It has 
     been said by the FEMA Long Term Community Recovery Team that 
     Southwest Louisiana is leading the state in the recovery 
     effort. But true recovery requires more than just debris 
     removal and new roofs. Because of the devastation caused by 
     Hurricane Rita, we need to retool and rebuild the economy of 
     Southwest Louisiana. We cannot depend on the existing 
     businesses and industry to rebuild the economy of our area. 
     We must be creative and aggressive in our efforts to both 
     diversify and expand our economy if we are to accomplish the 
     long term recovery goals FEMA and others have set for our 
     area.
       Hurricanes Rita and Katrina have impacted 30-40 percent of 
     the economy of our state. It will take years to truly recover 
     from this disaster in terms of real economic recovery. Please 
     help us remind your colleagues that no state in the history 
     of our

[[Page 3674]]

     great nation has ever suffered the extent of economic and 
     social disruption that Louisiana has as a result of these two 
     storms.
       Some would say that it is this ``can do'' attitude that has 
     prevented us in Southwest Louisiana from getting national 
     media attention. We don't want media attention, but we do 
     need your attention. Please assist us in getting our ``fair 
     share'' of federal funding for our recovery effort. And 
     please consider extending the GO Zone Legislation for 
     parishes hardest hit by these storms. We need at least an 
     additional two years to take advantage of the economic 
     recovery offered by this bill. And when it comes to the 
     allocation of Community Development Block Grant monies to the 
     individual states, please include an allocation for Hurricane 
     Rita parishes/counties as well.
       Thank you again for all you have done in the recent months 
     to focus attention on the recovery of Southwest Louisiana. If 
     you need additional information or we can assist you in any 
     way, please do not hesitate to contact us.
           Sincerely yours,
     Randy Roach,
       Mayor, City of Lake Charles
     Willie Mount,
       Louisiana State Senate
     Gerald Theunissen,
       Louisiana State Senate
     Chuck Kleckley,
       Louisiana House of Representatives
     Elcie Guillory,
       Louisiana House of Representatives
     Ronnie Johns,
       Louisiana House of Representatives
     Dan Morrish,
       Louisiana House of Representatives
     Brett Geyeman,
       Louisiana House of Representatives.
                                  ____


            [From American Press Editorial, Mar. 10, 2006.]

                      Hey, Congress, How About Us?

       On Wednesday, President Bush once again toured New Orleans' 
     areas damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
       The President's visit, his 10th, comes on the heels of 
     another visit by a large congressional delegation to New 
     Orleans and parts of Mississippi hit by Hurricane Katrina.
       There were about 100 people in the delegation, including 
     Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert and Minority Leader, 
     Nancy Pelosi.
       The trip was organized by Hastert's office and the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency.
       Meanwhile, residents of Calcasieu, Cameron, and Vermilion 
     parishes who are picking up the pieces from the devastating 
     Hurricane Rita wonder if they are being forgotten or if 
     anybody in Washington, D.C., cares.
       We understand that the areas in New Orleans and the 
     Mississippi Coast are hurting, but so are Southwest Louisiana 
     and Southeast Texas.
       It's an insult to Southwest Louisiana residents that more 
     than five months after Hurricane Rita struck here they are 
     still waiting for members of Congress to come and see the 
     devastation Rita wrought.
       Members of Congress need to talk to Cameron Parish 
     residents who have seen their entire way of life blown away 
     by Rita.
       Why do Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Texas Gov. Rick 
     Perry have to go to Washington to beg Congress to send more 
     funds for Hurricane Rita relief?
       All of this is a stark reminder about how Congress is out-
     of-touch with what needs to be done to help Southwest 
     Louisiana and Southeast Texas get back on track.
       Louisiana Seventh District U.S. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. 
     is aware of the problem with Rita amnesia in Washington. He 
     sent a letter to Hastert and Pelosi when he learned about the 
     congressional visit to New Orleans and Mississippi, urging 
     them to include Southwest, Louisiana in their fact-finding 
     tour.
       Hastert responded in a March 1 letter that he considered 
     including a tour of Southwest Louisiana in their recent 
     visit, but it was not possible.
       ``Unfortunately, logistics and time constraints made it 
     impractical to tour the parts of Louisiana impacted by 
     Hurricane Rita during this trip,'' Hastert wrote.
       He added that he wants to arrange a ``future visit'' so he 
     can ``personally come down to Southwest Louisiana.''
       Time's a-wastin', Mr. Speaker.
       A number of congressional delegations have visited 
     Louisiana and Mississippi in months past. Why didn't any come 
     to this part of the state? Why does Boustany have to beg 
     members of Congress to come here? Why haven't U.S. Sens. Mary 
     Landrieu and David Vitter come here with a delegation of 
     their Capitol Hill colleagues in tow to see Southwest 
     Louisiana?
       Landrieu of New Orleans and Vitter of Metairie have been on 
     the forefront in getting assistance for Katrina-ravaged 
     areas.
       They represent this part of the state, too.
       Vitter recently asked Don Powell, the federal recovery and 
     rebuilding coordinator, to tour storm-damaged areas in 
     Southwest Louisiana.
       It's the members of Congress, not Powell, who will approve 
     the relief funds this area so desperately needs.
       Landrieu and Vitter need to help bring a large 
     congressional delegation here to Southwest Louisiana. The 
     sooner the better.

  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I fully support the funding 
for our troops in this Emergency Supplemental; the men and women 
serving our country in Iraq and Afghanistan must have equipment to 
effectively fight insurgents, and the harsh environment has taken its 
toll on everything from helicopters to tanks to armored vehicles.
  I am concerned however that we are not addressing the impact of lost 
equipment and vehicles when our National Guard and Reserve units are 
forced to leave their equipment in Iraq.
  Some reports state that Guard and Reserve units in the U.S. are only 
equipped at 30 percent of pre-war levels. The FY06 Defense 
Appropriations bill included $1 billion for reequipping units here at 
home, but the Guard needs $20 billion to address the shortage.
  Money is tight in times of war, but national security is hollow if we 
leave our homeland unprotected to fight wars overseas. If we are going 
to increase the Federal debt limit yet again--by nearly $800 billion 
this time--and extend tax cuts, we should also equip the men and women 
who protect the homeland from terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
  This is extremely important for constituents in the district I 
represent. In 2001, Tropical Storm Allison, just weeks into the 
hurricane season, flooded tens of thousands of homes and businesses in 
southeast Texas. The Guard was a critical part of the rescue and 
recovery effort, using its large trucks and equipment to reach 
individuals stranded by the high water. During Katrina and Rita, the 
Guard again played a major role in rescue and recovery efforts after a 
natural disaster.
  With the start of hurricane season on June 1st--less than 3 months 
away--we must ensure Guard units along the gulf coast have the 
equipment they need to save lives.
  I also want to talk about housing for Katrina and Rita evacuees. We 
have 100,000 evacuees in the city of Houston's emergency housing 
program, but frankly FEMA and HUD have been very difficult to work 
with.
  FEMA told the city to sign 1-year leases for evacuees and promised in 
writing to reimburse Houston. First, these reimbursements have been 
extremely slow, and the our cities and apartments are becoming the bank 
for FEMA.
  I met with Houston apartment owners that have not been paid rent for 
90 days--I could not get away with that in my apartment in D.C., but 
FEMA gets away with it.
  Second, these commitments are not being honored. Instead, they are 
going to pull the rug out from under probably 30,000 of these evacuees 
that FEMA says won't qualify for housing help after March 31.
  In the coming weeks, 30,000 evacuees in Houston are going to get a 
letter giving them 30-days notice before eviction, even if they have a 
1-year lease that FEMA promised to reimburse back in September. Many of 
these evacuees are schoolchildren.
  FEMA has no plan for where the folks that they decide no longer 
qualify for housing assistance are going to find housing or where they 
are going to go. Rental rates are going to go up due to the influx of 
evacuees. Houston's section 8 housing program is full.
  Some 30,000 Americans should not end up on the streets of Houston and 
America should not stand for it. FEMA made commitments to 1-year leases 
and they are not abiding by their written commitments.
  Mr. Chairman, I fully support the hurricane relief funding in this 
bill and the funding for the men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, but 
I believe that there is a tremendous amount of work yet to be done.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendments by my 
colleagues in Texas, Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Doggett; our levee system in 
south Texas has long passed the point of insufficient--we are in an 
emergency situation.
  The Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project has several components, 
including the levee system along the Rio Grande, which is in a state of 
disrepair. This amendment provides $10 million for IBWC; it has no 
effect on budget authority; and it reduces outlays by $2 million for FY 
2006.
  The integrity of the 500-mile levee system is the responsibility of 
the Army Corp of Engineers and the International Boundary and Water 
Commission. The IBWC has not received any consistent Federal funding 
necessary to rehabilitate this critical levee system.
  An indirect impact from Hurricane Emily last September brought water 
levels along the south border to critical levels that we have not seen 
in decades.

[[Page 3675]]

  It was Hurricane Katrina that gave each American a tutorial on the 
utter importance of levees when it comes to protecting U.S. lives and 
property.
  In the two major storms that blew ashore last fall, Katrina gave us a 
glimpse of the damage possible if these levees are not repaired and 
Emily that made us hold our collective breath as the waters rose near 
the top of the levee system.
  Like New Orleans, the population protected by these levees is 
enormous. South Texas is a densely populated area, and is the front 
door of international trade. Millions of lives and the Nation's economy 
could hang in the balance when these levees fail. Evaluations of the 
present condition of these levees conclude the system is deficient in 
both hydraulic capacity and structural integrity.
  The investment we ask to include today as part of this emergency 
supplemental is a small price to pay to ensure the integrity of these 
levees when we have the next major hurricane. Hurricane season is 
rapidly approaching, and this is the last opportunity to fix the levee 
system before hurricanes start blowing into the gulf. Let us not be 
penny wise and pound foolish about the dangers that await us, as we 
were with the New Orleans levees.
  We know the damage that can happen and we know it will only come at a 
profoundly bad time, as millions of residents are trying to flee the 
coast and the U.S. economy takes a multi-billion dollar hit.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation, 
which makes ``emergencies'' out of non-emergencies and fails to provide 
assistance to my home State of Texas, which did suffer an emergency in 
the form of Hurricane Rita last summer.
  First, I should note to my colleagues and the American taxpayer that, 
at almost $92 billion, this is the largest supplemental appropriations 
request in the history of the U.S. Congress.
  Is it really an emergency to send $1.2 billion to pay off our allies 
for their help in Afghanistan? Won't these countries in close proximity 
presumably benefit more than even we will from the stability that we 
are told U.S. troops will provide? Perhaps these countries should be 
paying us for stabilizing their neighborhood. But no, it is always the 
U.S. taxpayer who ends up paying.
  Is $36 million more for taxpayer-funded broadcasting programs 
overseas really an emergency?
  Is $30 million to build roads in Liberia an emergency, when roads in 
Texas are still unrepaired after Hurricane Rita?
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to this ``emergency'' 
supplemental that reduces some of the non-emergency ``emergencies'' by 
$500 million and allocates that money for the recovery of the State of 
Texas from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Additionally, my amendment will 
take another half-billion dollars from the non-emergency portions of 
this bill and apply it toward the Federal deficit.
  The real emergency is the rate that this government is spending money 
we do not have on policies that we cannot afford while ignoring what 
should be our real priorities.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, there are important provisions in the 
supplemental appropriations that I support. Funding for upgraded 
military vehicles and tanks in Iraq will help protect troops and the 
National Guard. There is funding for programs such as Community 
Development Block Grants which will help in the recovery from Hurricane 
Katrina along the Gulf Coast and in New Orleans. I'm proud to have 
helped lead Congressional efforts requesting the administration to 
include funding for peacekeeping in Darfur. This supplemental includes 
$253 million for these efforts in Sudan.
  However, I cannot support this bill collectively and as a 
supplemental that is outside of the regular order of the budget 
process. It is time we take the budget process seriously and get our 
spending priorities in order.
  This is the largest supplemental appropriations measure ever 
considered by the House of Representatives at nearly $92 billion. The 
bulk of this spending, $68 billion, is for military operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. These efforts have now been ongoing for years and I 
will not support the administration's and Republican leadership's 
attempts to camouflage hundreds of billions of dollars by handling it 
through supplemental bills, which are for unexpected or emergency 
items. Most of this spending is neither unexpected nor emergency in 
nature.
  The administration is asking Congress to raise the debt ceiling 
another $781 billion on top of the current $8.2 trillion limit and the 
House refuses to have a separate vote accepting responsibility to pay 
for its reckless fiscal policies. This supplemental spending bill is a 
symbol for an administration and Congress that refuse to take our 
fiscal situation seriously.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, we should be cutting off funds for the War 
In Iraq, not adding more dollars. The billions of dollars already 
appropriated are enough to sustain our troops until the kind of orderly 
withdrawal proposed by Representative John Murtha is implemented. It is 
long past time to withdraw from a war that is sucking us deeper 
everyday into a bottomless quicksand pit of filth. To wage this war 
this administration is trampling on vital political rights and 
abandoning basic moral values. To pay for this war we are cutting aid 
to public housing; aid to Medicaid and Medicare; Pell grants; aid to 
public education; and numerous other programs which support the general 
welfare of all Americans.
  Deeply destructive public policies and practices have become routine 
in this administration as every conceivable trick is used to 
rationalize the war. To save the nation we must withdraw from Iraq and 
John Murtha has offered the most practical scenario for achieving this 
goal. At the heart of the Murtha proposal is the recommendation of an 
orderly withdrawal over a six-month period. Murtha offers an honorable 
way out of a quicksand pit of filth. John Murtha speaks with the voice 
of a soldier. He thinks with the mind of a patriot. And John Murtha 
feels with the heart of a grieving mother.
  Very definitive polls now communicate to all leaders the American 
people's overwhelming disapproval of the President and his War In Iraq. 
Our constituents endorse and support the position of John Murtha. 
History will certainly illuminate and validate the courage and wisdom 
of John Murtha. But Members of Congress should not wait for history. We 
Members of Congress have a duty to make history, to guide the nation 
out of this peril and back to the path of progress and prosperity. 
There are two classes of leaders who support this administration's War 
In Iraq: Those who consistently vote for the war and the endless 
appropriations. And those leaders whose levels of concern are so low 
that they refuse, despite the objections of their constituents, to even 
take the very moderate action of becoming a co-sponsor of Murtha's 
well-reasoned proposal for withdrawal. Censure or impeachment 
proceedings may be necessary in the future. But at this immediate 
moment the opportunity to salvage this deteriorating situation is 
clearly present in the Murtha proposal. Members should co-sponsor 
Murtha now and let their constituents know that their voices have been 
heard.
  Vote first against this wasteful, destructive, appropriation for 
Iraq. And then sign on as a Murtha co-sponsor.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Boozman). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. When the reading for amendment reaches title 
II, that title shall be considered read.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the following amendments 
may be offered at any point in the reading:
  An amendment by Mr. Gilchrest, regarding section 3011;
  An amendment by Mr. Sabo, regarding the Defense Production Act.
  Each amendment may be offered only by the Member named in the request 
or a designee, shall be considered read, shall not be subject to 
amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations each may offer one pro forma amendment for 
the purpose of debate; shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
the question; and shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4939

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, namely:

[[Page 3676]]



       TITLE I--GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

                               CHAPTER 1

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                      FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

                     Public Law 480 Title II Grants

       For an additional expenses for ``Public Law 480 Title II 
     Grants'', during the current fiscal year, not otherwise 
     recoverable, and unrecovered prior years' costs, including 
     interest thereon, under the Agricultural Trade Development 
     and Assistance Act of 1954, for commodities supplied in 
     connection with dispositions abroad under title II of said 
     Act, $350,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the amount provided under this heading is 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the concurrent 
     resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest.
       Strike section 3011.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of dialogue in the last few 
weeks about this issue of Dubai Ports World controlling U.S. ports. 
What I would like to do with this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to 
explain what the Dubai Ports World issue is, and in the process, hope 
my colleagues will vote in favor of this amendment which strikes the 
section of the supplemental appropriations bill, the section 3011.
  I would at first like to give some frame of reference as to what it 
means to be the Dubai Ports World, which basically has purchased P&O, a 
British firm, that works with scheduling for the loading and unloading 
of cargo at our Nation's ports.
  The Baltimore Sun, which is a newspaper in Maryland that represents 
the Port of Baltimore, one of the largest ports in the United States, 
says the following: ``Potentially lost in this uproar is a clear 
understanding of what a stevedore company does.'' Stevedore, that is 
what the Dubai Ports World is going to do. They are going to employ 
stevedores.
  For the record, its employees, of Dubai Ports World, do not touch any 
cargo. No employee of the Dubai Ports World touches cargo. They are not 
in charge of port security. They do not oversee shipping manifests. 
That means they don't know what is in the containers. Stevedores, which 
is what the Dubai Ports World is going to be, are the middle managers 
who tell longshoremen, who are Americans, who are employed by the 
ports, who are employed by the State and local governments that control 
the ports, the longshoremen are the ones that load and unload the 
cargo.
  Dubai Ports World will be able to tell them when that ship is going 
to dock and how to unload it. USA Today, many foreign companies, 
including one from Singapore, China and Taiwan, are doing business 
today at U.S. ports, leasing some terminals, to schedule the loading 
and unloading.
  General Tommy Franks, this is what General Tommy Franks says about 
this particular issue: I personally believe that we have no greater 
ally in seeking a resolution of problems in the Middle East, the 
Palestinian issue, the Israeli issue, than we have found in the United 
Arab Emirates.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this quote, and there are quotes from every 
major newspaper in this country, this is a quote from The New York 
Times: ``Dubai is not a democracy, and it is not without its warts. But 
Dubai is a bridge of decency that leads away from the failing 
civilization to a much more optimistic, open and self-confident 
society. Dubaians are building a future based on butter, not guns; 
private property, not caprice; services more than oil and globally 
competitive companies, not terror networks. Dubai is about nurturing 
Arab dignity through success, not suicide. As a result, its people want 
to embrace the future, not blow it up.
  Dubai, the United Arab Emirates. We have a difficult, nearly 
impossible situation in Iraq, difficulties in the Arab world. Who do we 
need most to bridge the gap of the lack of knowledge? Who do we need 
most in the Arab world to connect and bridge that gap between the 
United States and that culture? It is the United Arab Emirates.
  It is time for us to recognize that this is an ally that we need to 
integrate with the United States as far as global issues and global 
terror issues are concerned.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield half that time to my 
colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will control 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been a very frustrating day. I can remember 
when this place used to be a legislative body. Now it has unfortunately 
become 99 percent a political institution, and even the politics of the 
institution doesn't seem to be working out too well on either side of 
the aisle.
  What we have before us now is a holy picture debate. This is a 
Potemkin amendment. It is a Potemkin debate, and it is another example 
of how Congress has been reduced to dealing in symbols rather than 
dealing with substance.
  We have had this country in a frenzy about the Dubai involvement in 
American ports over the past couple of weeks. The Appropriations 
Committee had a vote, and by vote of 62 to 2, the committee adopted an 
amendment by the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Lewis, 
which shut off the ability of the Dubai company to make their purchase 
of American port facilities.
  We tried, in the committee, to make that action more rational by also 
establishing a process under which we would have a regularized notice 
to our government every time such a transaction is being proposed. The 
committee saw fit to turn that down.
  We are now out on the floor. What is going on now is that there is 
such a frenzy to have every single member of the House also on record 
on this issue, that we now have a faux debate going on. As I read this, 
the only purpose of this debate today is to allow every Member of the 
House to cast a vote. It is what I call a holy picture vote, and it 
means that when the votes come, this amendment is going to be 
overwhelmingly defeated.
  The only purposes I see that will have been accomplished by taking 
this time, is that Members will then have a vote in their pocket that 
they can take home and brag to people about. I admire the gentleman 
from Maryland and his willingness to be a sacrificial lamb on the 
amendment. I know that one or two people on this side of the aisle, 
such as Mr. Moran, share his view, and I admire them for their courage.
  I have to say that I really am frustrated to see on this, and a 
number of other amendments today and tomorrow, this House is going to 
deal with these issues in a symbolic manner rather than discussing it 
in a thorough, systematic way that might bring some additional credit 
to the House.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't feel like I am a sacrificial lamb, and I am not 
doing this for any other purpose other than to give our strongest ally 
in the Middle

[[Page 3677]]

East, the United Arab Emirates, the dignity that they deserve. There 
are Americans that feel they can do this in a most positive fashion.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from 
Maryland.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no illusions about the results of this vote. It 
is going to be pretty much proportionate to the 62-2 vote that we took 
in the full Appropriations Committee, Mr. Kolbe and I being in the 
minority. But I want to share with my colleagues why this is the wrong 
thing to be doing.
  The fact is that Dubai is our natural bridge to the modern, peaceful 
and progressive Arab world, and, with this amendment, instead of 
crossing that bridge, we blow it up.
  The fact is that we currently have over 600 ships that are using 
Dubai, U.S. naval vessels. We have more than 77,000 military personnel 
who take leave in Dubai, and we have never had a security incident. In 
fact, more U.S. military personnel take liberty, port leave, in other 
words, in the United Arab Emirates today than in any other place in the 
entire world.
  The UAE wants to be our friend. They want to invest some of those 
petro-dollars back in the United States. They want to modernize. They 
want, in fact, to trade with Israel. They want to trade with Europe. 
They want to trade with the United States. They are under a lot of 
political pressure, but, in fact, the emirs are standing up to that 
pressure.
  Couldn't we be expected to do the same? Are we going to yield to the 
fear and the prejudice that I think motivates this amendment? Because 
it is not reasoned judgment. In fact, the Committee on Foreign 
Investment in the United States was to be conducting a 45-day thorough 
investigation. Then we would be able to make an informed decision. At 
the end of that investigation they were going to make recommendations.
  But the reality is there aren't a whole lot of things that need to be 
changed with this transaction. It is a financial transaction. U.S. 
longshoremen still handle the cargo. The U.S. Coast Guard provides 
physical security. The Customs Service inspects the cargo.
  In fact, it was the UAE who was first, right away, to sign the U.S. 
Container Security Initiative. We asked them to. They are doing 
everything. And, my friends, the Director of the Department of Homeland 
Security, Secretary Chertoff, said if this deal goes through, it will 
make our ports more secure, not less.
  Listen to the experts.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am doing this in no small part because I have been 
looking for an accurate description of ``holy pictures'' for some time 
now since I have been dealing with my friend from Wisconsin, and in 
this process we are going through today, I think I may have found at 
least one snapshot.
  What we have done in this bill is attempt to respond to a very 
serious concern on the part of the American public regarding having a 
country or an organization that is related to a country in the Middle 
East having authority or control over any of our ports in this country. 
It is viewed by many as a serious national security issue, and this is 
a national security bill.
  Our goal is to make certain that we have thought through this Dubai 
Ports World deal very carefully before moving forward. The language is 
to stop that deal. It is rather straightforward. The 62-2 vote in the 
committee indicates the broad cross-section of public reaction 
reflected in the membership to going forward without some action on the 
part of the committee, and thus this language in the bill. It is rather 
straightforward.
  I welcome this discussion today, and intend to be as helpful as I can 
to those opposing our language.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me paraphrase the words that Mr. Obey said a few minutes ago. 
Rather than holy pictures, I would say this provision of the bill is a 
little bit like sprinkling holy water over the issue. It has no effect.
  Dubai has already announced that they are going to sell their 
interests. The deal already went through. There is no effect of this 
provision in actually blocking the sale. This is making everybody feel 
good, that they can thump their chest and say we are doing something 
really tough here.
  There are three good arguments, Mr. Chairman, as to why we should not 
be doing this.
  First, it diverts our attention from the real issue. The real issue, 
is we don't have good port security.

                              {time}  1715

  In fact, our port security is terrible. It is very poor. This diverts 
us from really dealing with the issue that we do not inspect more than 
2 percent of all containers. We do not really have a system for 
tracking containers and we do not know the origin of these containers. 
Containers start in one place in Malaysia and go to Singapore and then 
go to Vancouver, and then by train to Chicago. We have no idea where it 
originated and what might have been put into the container.
  We do not have the information. We have bad port security. And 
Congress has a responsibility for the oversight and to make sure that 
the Department of Homeland Security is doing the job it should be 
doing.
  This diverts our attention from this issue and, allows everybody to 
feel good about what they are doing. It has no effect, none, on port 
security, or on the security of the United States.
  The second reason why this is bad, it is damaging, as has been 
indicated by the gentleman from Virginia, it is damaging to our 
relationship with the United Arab Emirates.
  The United Arab Emirates, Dubai, is the largest port in the world 
outside of the United States for U.S. warships. This last year 56 
warships docked in the United Arab Emirates, Dubai, the same port that 
is managed by this company, and 590 supply vessels. All supplies that 
go to Iraq go through this port.
  Now we are inviting trouble. If Dubai decides that they want to 
retaliate against the United States, we will be up a creek without a 
paddle when it comes to getting our supplies into Iraq.
  And then, the third reason, it sends the wrong signal to investors 
around the world. It says to investors around the world that we are not 
really a reliable trading partner or a reliable investment partner. It 
says to them, that, the United States has rules that they are supposed 
to follow, and then they throw them overboard.
  This has been confirmed to me in at least one email that I have 
received from somebody who is an investor in Singapore. It said that 
many of his clients are reconsidering some of their investments in the 
United States, investments that create jobs for American workers in 
this country, because we do not have a reliable policy.
  This is good politics but bad policy, and this provision should be 
removed from the bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 4939. I 
will be supporting the Supplemental Appropriations Act so our Armed 
Forces who are so bravely working to rebuild Iraq and fight the global 
war on terror have all of the tools and equipment they need to be 
successful.
  My support comes, however, with a great deal of consternation. 
Because in this voting for this legislation I will also be forced to 
support unrelated spending for the rebuilding of the gulf coast.
  Let me be clear. I believe that we need to help those devastated by 
Katrina. I have been there twice. But we must do it in a responsible 
manner with a clear understanding of where and how the money is spent.

[[Page 3678]]

  It is clear that we must sustain military operations and 
reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, continuing making 
progress and tracking down and bringing terrorists to justice and 
procure the necessary equipment for our troops to carry out their 
mission.
  It is unclear to me, however, why we must couple this funding with 
gulf coast relief funds. Both are worthy causes, but in my view the 
spending for the latter is in desperate need for further oversight and 
explanation.
  For instance, we should be taking a closer look at the $9.6 billion 
included for FEMA's problematic Disaster Relief Fund and the $4.2 
billion included for community development block grants, which are not 
even required to go to the gulf coast areas. These funds should not be 
incorporated into a bill with those for our military force protection 
needs, including up-armored Humvees, Abram tanks, Bradley fighting 
vehicles.
  Congress has already allocated $62.3 billion to hurricane relief and 
recovery. I believe that it is Congress' responsibility to demand a 
strict accounting of how these dollars are spent, and any further funds 
allocated to the gulf coast for hurricane relief should be offset with 
other savings.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. We are on the amendment dealing with the 
Dubai Ports. Does the gentleman know that?
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I did not know that. I apologize.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I thought that is why you were asking to 
speak. But that is okay. Just go right ahead.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I will go ahead and complete. I do 
apologize for that. I was not aware of that.
  But I think it is important, in conclusion, that we work toward 
rebuilding and restoring normalcy for those who are affected by 
Katrina. However, we should do so in a stand-alone bill to ensure that 
we have proper oversight.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, this is what I would like to conclude 
with. Dubai Ports World will have no administrative authority over any 
ports. They will have no security responsibility over any ports in the 
United States. That is retained by the Federal and State governments, 
completely.
  All the longshoremen will still be American longshoremen that load 
and unload these ships. The Dubai Ports World is an organization made 
up of American investors, and chief executive officers of the United 
States are officers in this Dubai Ports World organization. They are a 
strong ally. Let this vote signal dignity and worth to the United Arab 
Emirates. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to strike.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I will use just a few seconds 
to close.
  We oppose this amendment for security purposes. This language should 
remain in the bill to make certain that Dubai Ports World does not have 
any management control or authority over any of our major ports.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, while I understand the sentiments and the 
security concerns of the Members here today on this ports issue, I feel 
strongly that free trade is a core American value that is worth 
fighting for. I look forward to making the case for free trade and for 
economic engagement with our moderate Arab allies here today.
  But first, let's consider what we are and are not voting on today. 
The U.S. Congress cannot stop this sale, as this provision would seek 
to do. We simply do not have jurisdiction beyond our shores. In fact, 
the sale has already happened and the shareholders will be paid over 
the next couple of weeks. While I appreciate the desire of Members to 
stop the sale, the fact is that this language does nothing of the sort.
  I'm not sure what the goal is. The language certainly does not stop 
the purchase by Dubai Ports World, and--even more important--does 
nothing to improve the security of our ports. I would argue that this 
provision does not improve our security but will damage us 
economically, militarily, and diplomatically.
  It seems as if we are operating in a fact-free zone here.
  The facts are that companies based in many other countries are 
already managing most of the Nation's ports. Will we be seeking to 
overturn these contracts next?
  The fact is that no American company chose to bid on Peninsular and 
Oriental. There is only one American company large enough to take on 
this kind of contract, and my understanding is that firm is already at 
capacity. Would we simply wish an American ports management company 
into creation?
  Let's talk a little about port security. We know that no matter who 
manages port operations, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Customs 
Service, and U.S. longshoremen continue to be responsible for port 
security, the checking of cargo, and the handling of cargo.
  Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations testified before 
Congress: ``We need to know what's in the box more than we need to know 
who is moving them around a container yard.''
  So if our concern truly is port security, why are we not focusing on 
supporting that overall effort?
  The fact is that Dubai Ports World is of course involved with the 
Jebel Ali port, one of the largest and among the most advanced ports in 
the world. According to The New York Times, it is the world's 11th 
largest port and annually handles more than 7.5 million containers, 
many of them going directly to and from the United States. On a number 
of issues, they have cooperated with the U.S. government to allow for 
our inspections.
  Robert C. Bonner, formerly with Customs, was quoted in The New York 
Times: ``Dubai has acknowledged the absolute importance of securing 
cargo against terrorists.''
  On cargo security, we ought to be concerned about what's being 
onloaded in foreign ports just as much as we are concerned about what's 
being offloaded on our shores. Once a dangerous ship arrives, it's far 
too late for concern.
  So if we trust Dubai Ports World on the first crucial half of a cargo 
transaction--the loading--why would we not trust the company to be 
involved in U.S. cargo operations in a strictly management capacity?
  Nonetheless, the company has moved forward to sell the operations to 
a U.S. buyer. DPW announced yesterday it has retained credible, well-
known legal and financial firms to handle this transaction. The company 
has agreed to abide by a voluntary commitment to hold U.S. ports 
separate until the sale is complete.
  And still, it seems that it's not enough. I would ask: What more 
would we have DPW do? When will this be dead enough to satisfy the U.S. 
Congress?
  The action, I am sad to say, sends exactly the wrong message to the 
world about the climate for international businesses in the United 
States. It sends the wrong message about our willingness to engage in 
transactions that create growth and jobs here at home. It tells the 
world that we are an unreliable trading partner.
  While we are sometimes obsessed with the so-called ``outsourcing'' of 
American jobs abroad, why are we not similarly concerned about our 
ability to ``insource'' jobs through foreign direct investment?
  Moving to the military aspect of our relationship with Dubai, today 
we may blatantly insult a moderate Arab ally that has generously 
allowed the use of its port and airfield facilities for our military. 
General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called 
the U.S. military relationship with the UAE ``superb.'' Dubai provides 
servicing and port security that is good enough for the U.S. Navy.
  I worry how that relationship will proceed in the future, and I 
believe that this entire affair will end up as diplomatic disaster for 
the United States throughout the moderate Middle East.
  Lawrence Lindsey recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal: ``The UAE 
isn't any old Arab country. It sits astride the Strait of Hormuz 
through which a fifth of world oil passes. Iran sits on the other side. 
. . . From a global perspective, efforts by the U.S. Congress to 
alienate the UAE at this time look about as sensible as Russian 
roulette.''
  There are many other respected voices who have spoken to the 
economic, security, and global issues raised in this controversy.
  Robert Samuelson, the renowned economist, wrote recently in The 
Washington Post about how this action will damage American interests. 
In addition to the damage done to our relationship with the UAE and 
other allies in the Middle East, Samuelson holds the view that it has 
weakened worldwide confidence in the dollar.
  Samuelson concludes, ``Every country has the right to protect its 
security interests. But those interests must be defined coherently and 
not simply as the random expression of political expediency.''
  James Glassman of the American Enterprise Institute testified before 
a Financial Services subcommittee: ``Our ties through trade, in

[[Page 3679]]

fact, have made us more safe as our trading partners become more 
prosperous, open and democratic. But our politicians and pundits should 
know that we can't pick and choose. If we decide to deny firms from 
developing nations--Arab, Asian or otherwise--from investing in the 
United States, those firms will go elsewhere. And we will pay the 
price--in higher interest rates, higher mortgage rates, higher 
inflation, lower stock prices, less participation in a world [that is] 
growing more and more creative and exciting.''
  Since World War II, the United States has enjoyed economic growth and 
an increase in economic standard of living that has never before been 
achieved in world history. This has gone hand-in-hand with our values 
of democracy and freedom of thought. We have watched other nations fail 
because they were too closed, either economically or politically or 
both. One of the critical factors in our stunning success has been free 
trade and the free movement of capital throughout the world.
  I can't say it any better than Thomas Friedman, who wrote: ``People 
across the world still look to our example of pluralism, which is like 
no other. If we go Dark Ages, if we go down the road of pitchfork-
wielding xenophobes, then the whole world will go Dark Ages.''
  ``There is a poison loose today, and America--America at its best--is 
the only antidote. That's why it is critical that we stand by our 
principles of free trade and welcome the world to do business in our 
land, as long as there is no security threat.''
  This is a feel-good vote in the heat of the moment that I think the 
House will live to regret. It's time for us to decide whether we are 
going to continually respond to 9/11 with a reactive fear, or whether 
we're going to move forward and engage the world with confidence. 
Today, I will vote for the latter.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Boozman). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Boozman). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 
XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Sabo

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sabo:
       Page 83, after line 16, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 3011A. (a) Section 721 of the Defense Production Act 
     of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 721. INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS FOR 
                   NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS.

       ``(a) Investigations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon receiving written notification, as 
     prescribed by regulations under this section, of any merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover proposed or pending on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this section by or with any foreign 
     person which could result in foreign control of any person 
     engaged in interstate commerce in the United States, the 
     President, acting through the President's designee and the 
     Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States shall 
     conduct an investigation to determine the effects, if any, of 
     the proposed or pending merger, acquisition, or takeover on 
     the national security of the United States.
       ``(2) Timing.--Any investigation required under paragraph 
     (1) shall be completed before the end of the 75-day period 
     beginning on the date of the receipt by the President or the 
     President's designee of written notification of the proposed 
     or pending merger, acquisition, or takeover.
       ``(b) Confidentiality of Information.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any information or documentary material 
     filed with the President or the President's designee pursuant 
     to this section shall be exempt from disclosure under section 
     552 of title 5, United States Code, and no such information 
     or documentary material may be made public, except as may be 
     relevant to any administrative or judicial action or 
     proceeding.
       ``(2) Availability to the congress.--No provision of 
     paragraph (1) shall be construed as preventing the disclosure 
     of any information or documentary material to either House of 
     Congress or to any duly authorized committee or subcommittee 
     of the Congress.
       ``(c) Committee on Foreign Investment in the United 
     States.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Committee on Foreign Investment 
     in the United States established pursuant to Executive Order 
     No. 11858 (hereafter in this section referred to as the 
     `Committee') shall be a multi-agency committee to carry out 
     this section and such other assignments as the President may 
     designate.
       ``(2) Membership.--The Committee shall be comprised of the 
     following members:
       ``(A) The Secretary of the Treasury.
       ``(B) The Secretary of State.
       ``(C) The Secretary of Defense.
       ``(D) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
       ``(E) The Attorney General.
       ``(F) The Secretary of Commerce.
       ``(G) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(H) The United States Trade Representative.
       ``(I) The Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
       ``(J) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy.
       ``(3) Chairperson.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall be 
     the Chairperson of the Committee.
       ``(4) Other members.--The Chairperson of the Committee 
     shall involve the heads of such other Federal agencies, the 
     Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and 
     the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy in any 
     investigation under subsection (a) as the Chairperson 
     determines to be appropriate on the basis of the facts and 
     circumstances of the transaction under investigation.
       ``(5) Role of the director of national intelligence.--The 
     Director of National Intelligence shall provide appropriate 
     intelligence analysis and intelligence briefings to the 
     Committee.
       ``(d) Action by the President.--
       ``(1) In general.--No proposed or pending acquisition, 
     merger, or takeover, of a person engaged in interstate 
     commerce in the United States by or with foreign persons may 
     occur unless the President, on the basis of an investigation 
     and report by the Committee, finds that such acquisition, 
     merger or takeover, will not threaten to impair the national 
     security of the United States, as defined by regulations 
     prescribed pursuant to this section, and approves the 
     transaction.
       ``(2) Enforcement.--The President shall direct the Attorney 
     General to seek appropriate relief, including divestment 
     relief, in the district courts of the United States in order 
     to implement and enforce--
       ``(A) any finding, action, or determination under this 
     section of disapproval of an acquisition, merger, or 
     takeover; or
       ``(B) any conditions imposed on any approval of any 
     acquisition, merger, or takeover.
       ``(3) Finality of determinations.--All actions and 
     determinations under this section shall be final and not 
     subject to judicial review.
       ``(e) Findings by the President.--
       ``(1) In general.--A finding under this section of 
     impairment or threatened impairment to national security 
     shall be based on credible evidence that leads the President 
     to believe that--
       ``(A) the foreign interest exercising control might take 
     action that threatens to impair the national security; and
       ``(B) other provisions of law do not provide adequate and 
     appropriate authority for the President to protect the 
     national security.
       ``(2) Factors to be considered.--Any investigation under 
     this section shall take into account the following factors:
       ``(A) Domestic production needed for projected national 
     defense requirements.
       ``(B) The capability and capacity of domestic industries to 
     meet national defense requirements, including the 
     availability of human resources, products, technology, 
     materials, and other supplies and services.
       ``(C) The control of domestic industries and commercial 
     activity by foreign citizens as it affect the capability and 
     capacity of the United States to meet the requirements of 
     national security.
       ``(D) The potential effects of the proposed or pending 
     transaction on sales of military goods, equipment, or 
     technology to any country--
       ``(i) identified by the Secretary of State--

       ``(I) under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act 
     of 1979, as a country that supports terrorism;
       ``(II) under section 6(l) of the Export Administration Act 
     of 1979, as a country of concern regarding missile 
     proliferation; or
       ``(III) under section 6(m) of the Export Administration Act 
     of 1979, as a country of concern regarding the proliferation 
     of chemical and biological weapons; or

       ``(ii) listed under section 309(c) of the Nuclear Non-
     Proliferation Act of 1978 on the `Nuclear Non-Proliferation-
     Special Country List' (15 C.F.R. Part 778, Supplement No. 4) 
     or any successor list.
       ``(E) The potential effects on the proposed or pending 
     transaction on United States international technological 
     leadership in areas affecting United States national 
     security.
       ``(f) Report to the Congress.--Upon making any 
     determination to approve or disapprove any merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover by or with any foreign person which 
     could result in foreign control of any person engaged in 
     interstate commerce in the United States, the President shall 
     immediately transmit to the Secretary of the Senate and

[[Page 3680]]

     the Clerk of the House of Representatives a written report of 
     the President's determination under this section to approve 
     or disapprove such merger, acquisition, or takeover, 
     including a detailed explanation of the finding made and 
     factors considered.
       ``(g) Congressional Action.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the determination of the President 
     contained in the report transmitted to the Congress under 
     subsection (f) is that the President will approve any merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover under subsection (d) and not later 
     than 30 days after the date on which Congress receives the 
     report, a joint resolution described in paragraph (2) is 
     enacted into law, then the President shall take such action 
     under subsection (d) as is necessary to prohibit the merger, 
     acquisition, or takeover, including, if such acquisition has 
     been completed, directing the Attorney General to seek 
     divestment or other appropriate relief in the district courts 
     of the United States.
       ``(2) Joint resolution described.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the term `joint resolution' means a joint 
     resolution of the Congress, the sole matter after the 
     resolving clause of which is as follows: `That the Congress 
     disapproves the determination of approval of the President 
     contained in the report submitted to Congress pursuant to 
     section 721(f) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 on 
     _____.', with the blank space being filled with the 
     appropriate date.
       ``(3) Computation of review period.--In computing the 30-
     day period referred to in paragraph (1), there shall be 
     excluded any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act 
     of 1974.
       ``(h) Regulations.--The President shall direct the issuance 
     of regulations to carry out this section. Such regulations 
     shall, to the extent possible, minimize paperwork burdens and 
     shall to the extent possible coordinate reporting 
     requirements under this section with reporting requirements 
     under any other provision of Federal law.
       ``(i) Effect on Other Law.--No provision of this section 
     shall be construed as altering or affecting any existing 
     authority, power, process, regulation, investigation, 
     enforcement measure, or review provided by any other 
     provision of law.
       ``(j) Technology Risk Assessments.--In any case in which an 
     assessment of the risk of diversion of defense critical 
     technology is performed by the Committee or any other 
     designee of the President, a copy of such assessment shall be 
     provided to any other designee of the President responsible 
     for reviewing or investigating a merger, acquisition, or 
     takeover under this section.
       ``(k) Biennial Report on Critical Technologies.--
       ``(1) In general.--In order to assist the Congress in its 
     oversight responsibilities with respect to this section, the 
     President and such agencies as the President shall designate 
     shall complete and furnish to the Congress, not later than 
     May 1, 2007, and upon the expiration of every 2 years 
     thereafter, a report, both in classified and unclassified 
     form, which--
       ``(A) evaluates whether there is credible evidence of a 
     coordinated strategy by 1 or more countries or companies to 
     acquire United States companies involved in research, 
     development, or production of critical technologies for which 
     the United States is a leading producer; and
       ``(B) evaluates whether there are industrial espionage 
     activities directed or directly assisted by foreign 
     governments against private United States companies aimed at 
     obtaining commercial secrets related to critical technology.
       ``(2) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `critical technologies' means technologies identified 
     under title VI of the National Science and Technology Policy, 
     Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 or other critical 
     technology, critical components, or critical technology items 
     essential to national defense or security identified pursuant 
     to this section.
       ``(l) Biennial Report on Critical Infrastructure.--In order 
     to assist the Congress in its oversight responsibilities, the 
     President and such agencies as the President shall designate 
     shall complete and furnish to the Congress, not later than 90 
     days after the date of enactment of this subsection and upon 
     the expiration of every 2 years thereafter, a report, both in 
     classified and unclassified form, which--
       ``(1) lists all critical infrastructure, as defined under 
     subtitle B of title II of Public Law 107-296, that is owned, 
     controlled or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, 
     or a foreign government;
       ``(2) evaluates whether there is credible evidence of a 
     coordinated strategy by 1 or more countries or companies to 
     acquire United States critical infrastructure; and
       ``(3) evaluates whether there are industrial espionage 
     activities directed or directly assisted by foreign 
     governments against private United States companies 
     controlling critical infrastructure.''.
       (b) The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply to 
     the review and investigation of any acquisition, merger, or 
     takeover which is or becomes subject to section 721 of the 
     Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) (as in 
     effect immediately before the date of the enactment of this 
     Act or on or after such date) that has not become final 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the Rules Committee has not 
allowed me to offer my amendment to strengthen the CFIUS foreign 
investment review process to this bill.
  Americans deserve a rigorous review of foreign investments that could 
affect our national security. We all know now that the Bush 
administration was sleepwalking through the review of the Dubai Ports 
World transaction to acquire shipping terminals at six major U.S. 
ports.
  We should fix the process. Never again should we find that the 
President and the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Treasury and 
Defense are unaware of a foreign takeover of a critical U.S. asset 
until after it is approved.
  The bill kills the Dubai Ports World deal. It does not, however, deal 
with the larger problem of an inadequate foreign investment review 
process. An amendment I offered in committee would have fixed the 
problem for the future.
  My amendment would strengthen the CFIUS process in the following 
ways: all transactions that result in foreign control of any person 
engaged in interstate commerce would be required to undergo a full 
review to determine whether it affects U.S. national security.
  Today, foreign firms voluntarily, let me say that again, voluntarily 
notify us of these transactions. I believe notification must be 
mandatory to ensure that our government knows about all such 
transactions.
  My amendment would also retain the Secretary of the Treasury as the 
chairperson of the committee.
  Under my amendment, the President would be required to approve or 
disapprove all transactions. Today, if the President takes no action, 
the transaction is automatically approved.
  My amendment would extend the CFIUS review period to the full 75 
days. Current practice allows most transactions to be reviewed within 
30 days, with an additional 45 days of review only if flags are raised.
  The amendment would also require the Congress to be notified of 
Presidential decisions. Furthermore, Congress could overturn approvals 
within 30 days by a joint resolution. Today, Congress is notified of a 
CFIUS transaction only when the President disapproves one, and we 
discover about approvals, like we did in the most recent case, through 
the press.
  Under my amendment, the administration would also be required to 
report to Congress on foreign ownership of all U.S. critical 
infrastructure within 90 days of enactment of this bill. Today, no one 
really knows how much of our critical infrastructure is in the hands of 
foreign companies and foreign governments.
  If we fail to fix the deep flaws in the CFIUS process, our Nation 
will be vulnerable in the future. We should not take that chance. We 
should act now to strengthen the foreign investment review process.
  I would hope the gentleman from California, the distinguished 
chairman, would not insist on his point of order so the House may have 
a vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this place is really something else. We just 
had a debate on an amendment that doesn't do ``nothing'' to or for 
``nobody''.
  The Dubai deal is already dead, and so it is irrelevant whether this 
House votes for the Gilchrest amendment or not. Because the Dubai deal 
is already dead, the Lewis Amendment is eviscerated; it does not do 
anything. It leaves the country with the same problem that we had 
before we discovered the Dubai controversy.

[[Page 3681]]

  What Mr. Sabo is doing today is what he usually does, which is to try 
to bring a bit of objectivity and concern for substance into a 
political pit. And what Mr. Sabo is saying in his amendment is ``Let's 
fix the process so that we do not have the future spectacle of a 
President to the United States being clueless when a transaction like 
Dubai is about to take place.''
  So what Mr. Sabo is saying is, ``Look, the problem with the process 
is that, right now, it is voluntary, whether or not the people with an 
economic interest in such a transaction ever notifies our government or 
not.''
  What the Sabo Amendment would do is to say, ``Let's make sure our 
government always knows what is happening with these kind of 
transactions.'' And the second thing the Sabo Amendment does is to make 
certain that Congress can have a role, if it chooses, in this process. 
Because right now the only time Congress is ever informed is if the 
President turns down a transaction. They are not informed if the 
President goes ahead with it.
  So I would suggest it would be quaint indeed if this House uses a 
technicality in the rules to eliminate the only amendment that does 
something and then makes a big political production out of voting on 
the Gilchrest amendment, which is totally irrelevant. It is as 
irrelevant as the Lewis amendment is, because Dubai is already done, 
the deal is gone, it is quashed.
  What Mr. Sabo is trying to do is to create some order for the future.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my good friend. I rise in support of 
this amendment.
  As I suggested in addressing the last amendment, we need to be driven 
by people with expertise, not by fear and prejudice. What Mr. Sabo is 
suggesting is that we get the facts on the table so that we can make 
the most informed judgment. That is all it is. We are not necessarily 
going to automatically reject anyone or accept anyone.
  Let's have the facts on the table, take the time, let the experts on 
the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States do a thorough 
investigation. I think it will satisfy our constituents' concerns, but 
it will also enable us to make much more responsible decisions that we 
have made in the last week. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of 
order.
  Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because 
it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an 
appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that a point of order is 
raised on this very good amendment, but I would concede the point of 
order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. 
The amendment is not in order.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Gilchrest) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 38, 
noes 377, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 43]

                                AYES--38

     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (TX)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Conaway
     Davis, Tom
     Ehlers
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Jefferson
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     McCrery
     McDermott
     Miller (MI)
     Moran (VA)
     Neugebauer
     Olver
     Oxley
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Rohrabacher
     Sabo
     Schwarz (MI)
     Shadegg
     Smith (WA)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--377

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Andrews
     Becerra
     Boren
     Buyer
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Duncan
     Evans
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Lantos

[[Page 3682]]


     Matsui
     McCollum (MN)
     Norwood
     Peterson (MN)
     Sweeney
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1800

  Messrs. BOEHNER, SCOTT of Georgia, NUNES, WYNN, Ms. PRYCE of Ohio, 
Messrs. SAXTON, MEEK of Florida, TIAHRT, Mrs. MUSGRAVE and Mr. RANGEL 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. FRANKS of Arizona, McDERMOTT, and HENSARLING changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gingrey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Boozman, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4939) 
making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________